Morality

Why does Martial Arts and MMA fighters lean to the conservative-right, politically and morally?

Because you can't talk your way out of a beating; errors of judgment have immediate and painful consequences.

Satyr wrote:

In the Seoul zoo, two elephants rescued baby elephant drowned in the pool…

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Tansu YEĞEN (@TansuYegen) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Morality requires no culture to evolve, it requires culture to be given a code, and from there to be amended.

A very beautiful film - more beautiful than any romance, no matter how schmaltzy.

One more reason to love animals, especially those that have intelligence. Why? Compassion is more present, the larger and/or more complex the brain is.

Yes....moral behaviour - the act - does not require a god.
Man simply encodes moral behaviour - translate it into words - symbols.
Creating the erroneous impression that man invented morality.
A mistake exacerbated by man adding codes of conduct to what evolved independently - trial/error, naturally selected.

The same can be said for emotions.
Like the display of 'love' in the vid, of a mother for her offspring.

A survival pattern converted to a behavioural rule, a social law.
Just as gender is man integrating reproductive specialization, i.e., sex, into his manmade institutionalized constructs.
Eventually simpletons forget and imagine that it was all invented by man from nothing and nowhere - or that a willful, agency, i.e., god, created it.
Simpletons want to forget the motive, the utility, of all that they depend upon, mystify it to preserve it or to purify it.

Many express that some kind of moral line has been crossed.
Incorrect.
Lines no longer exist and this teacher's behavior is the logical outcome.
Once morality becomes completely subjective it ceases to be any kind of restraint upon a society.
You go girl![You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Felix Rex (@navyhato) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Moral behaviour, e.g., altruism, compassion, tolerance, love, self-sarifice, evolved to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies; ethics are developed to facilitate increasingly complex and numerous social systems, in relation to a collective ideal.
If the collective ideal conflicts with the evolved behaviours we call them nihilistic.....
Morals are actions (genetic); ethics, and ethical codes are ideological extensions or addendums of the previous (memetic).
A-morality is the expression of nihilistic ethical negation of moral behaviours - an anti-moral ethos, just as their ideological rejection of biological identifiers and free-will are anti-natue, anti-philosophical philosophies/ideologies.

If morality is the collective will to power then amorality is its rejection.
A will toward individual power, or powerlessness.
But why would anyone will powerlessness?
An expression of a recognition of impotence surrendering to a faceless, lifeless, abstract collective; an escape from responsibility, and guilt, shame, embarrassment....

Those who declare themselves to be "a-moralsits" are retarded recovering Abrahamic who associate morality with a code, a Mosaic laws, written in words on a stone tablet by some kind of divine agency.
They imply that before Moses found ethics in the burning bush, people were indiscriminately killing each other, were cruel and brutal to one another, and that animals, all social animals, were also inspired by Mosaic laws.
As if morality was not an act, a behaviour, that was later encoded, by humans, into laws - just as man codifies natural laws as he understands natural patterns.

Mosaic laws are indeed ethical amendments that contradict human nature, but morality is an evolved behaviour that facilitates cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
For example, the "love thy neighbour" bullshyte, was a universalization of a Jewish rule against harming a fellow Jew, while not holding this rule in regards to non-Jews.
But this rule is an innate rule found among all social organisms because ti prevents in-fighting and the weakening of the group relative to other groups and other species.
This they took and Christianized it to impose upon Europeans a unnatural rule forcing him to essentially castrate himself.
Love thy Neighbour, is in fact love thy fellow member of the same tribe, the same ethnicity, the same family.

Postmodern morons took this universal ethical law, and negated it, correctly finding to be entirely a human fabrication imposed upon populations to castrate them.
But "love thy neighbour" is not a universal law, ti is a tribal law, indicating, as I've said, group disapproval of what will weaken its cohesion and its survival and reproductive potentials.

In polyethnic, multiracial, modern systems 'love thy neighbour' should be replaced with 'treat your neighbour, though he be a stranger, as you would have him treat you' - the Golden Rule.
Not 'love' him at all.

This is why I've differentiated between evolved moral behaviours, facilitating survival, and ethical amendments which have ulterior political and socioeconomic motives.
Mosaic Commandments are ethical rules, i.e., manmade amendments of addendums of moral behaviours.

In regards to species that have evolved a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy morality amorality is impossible, and ti would indicate some kind of sociopathy, or genetic, mental, problem.
Without morality man, and no social species can survive, because morality is an action, a behaviour, before man made it into a moral rule, requiring no god. It evolved because it increased the probability of group survival through group cohesion - inter-gropu stability.
Evolution requires no god, no agency.

These recovering Abrahamic consider themselves 'amoral' because they've overcome the superstitious idiocy of Mosaic Laws, meant to use fear to impose a law no nitwit or midwit would dare break....yet they still do, because these Mosaic Commandments are manmade, not naturally evolved.

Another example is the commandment against adultery.
Another example of Jews appropriating a tribal rule that promoted monogamy, so as to integrate as many males and females as possible into a cohesive whole, and warped it into a superstition based anti-nature law.
Humans are not by nature monogamous, but male competitions would make tribal unities impossible to maintain and grow, so this was an unwritten rule, passed on as tradition, that made the appropriation of another mate a group rule punishable be expulsion, i.e., certain death. A rule developed in harsh climates where resources necessitated larger and stronger tribal unities.

The moral/ethical formula, simplified for simpletons:

1- An individual's actions, behaviours, choices, based on his/her judgements, evaluations, relative to his objectives, values.

2- A group's values and objectives.

3- #1 relative to #2 is morality (evolved over time) and ethics (amendments of morality).
A group's primary objective - as well as an individual's primary, primal objective - is its own survival, propagation, dependent on its cohesion and performance relative to other groups.

4- #3 relative to environment - where this performance and competition takes place - manifest positive/negative consequences.

5- Consequences determine the success of a group's primary objective - #3's success/failure.

Place any individual action, behaviour choice in #1
Place any group values, objectives in #2
_______________________________________________
To the imbeciles:
Place any individual act, behaviours, choice in #1, then evaluate it relative to #2, and then, if you cannot observe it in practice, evaluate #2 in relation to #3.
Preferably, all this can be put into practice so that we are not dealing with theory but with actions with observable consequences.

Example:
Mary Land is either a slut - likes to party and have sex with random guys - or a moron, is too stupid, or naive to judge males, or too impulsive to control herself.
She, predictably, becomes pregnant due to her poor judgements, expressed through poor choices.

Is the group she belongs to willing to offer her a quick and easy correction for her idiocy or her whoring ways?
If so then she has no reason to change, or grow, or adapt, and she will continue being a slut or a moron; she has no reason to control her impulses.
Group values do not punish her because they place individual objectives above group objectives. They actually absorb the negative consequences of her poor judgments and choices.
Consequence?
If Mary Land does it, then Susy Que sees it and does it as well...and then Cum Lately wants to do it as well. It's an easy fix. It becomes the norm in this group, because the group protect all tis members form their own idiocy or impulsiveness.

What does this mean for the group, relative to the environment?
The group does not replace those that die, and so over time it begins to weaken and can no longer compete with other groups, nor can it retain its cohesion as the number of young decline and the number of elderly increase.
The group also suffers a decline in good judgments producing good choices - the group average IQ drops because there is no reason for any thinking, and no reason to control oneself.
The group degenerates.
In time the group is absorbed or destroyed by another group - one in which Mary Land, her lifestyle preferences, and her idiocy suffered the full severity of the consequences because the group refused to fund her and shelter her, forcing her to adapt or die.
Here the individual perishes or adapts, and not the group.

This is the basic function of morality.
Replace 'abortion' with any individual act, choice...like paedophilia, incest, murder, homosexuality, transsexuality, bestiality, etc.
Any human act, behaviour....any and every choice.
This is the basis of why morality evolves only among social species or species that adopt a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy - evolving self-control and tolerance relative to other of their own kind so as to increase their survival and reproductive potentials.

No god required.
God is necessary only as a method of enforcing ethical amendments that are not naturally ingrained, such as:
Rules against adultery, thieving, etc.
God is necessary to offer rewards/threats to midwits and dimwits or those that cannot be rationally swayed to put in the effort and supress their impulses. It's an added level of group control - along with shaming and law & order imposing group punishments on those that contradict group values, threatening group survival.
______________________________________________
From genes to memes - from morals to ethics.
The Jews were the first to invent these ethical codes we call 'Commandments.'
The first theocracy founded on amendments to evolved moral actions/behaviours - behaviours we witness among many species, not only humans.
Ethics, on the other hand, is entirely human since it necessitates language and abstract thinking, as well as self-awareness and the ability to project thinking across space/time.
Marriage, for instance - and according to Socrates - is a technology....
Without its invention sophisticated human systems would be impossible.
Marriage is a development from monogamy, evolved among Aryan peoples to integrate as many males into a cohesive group, increasing the participating individual's survival potentials, and their reproductive potentials, which are extensions of survival, since reproduction is a naturally evolved method of overcoming individual mortality.
Mariage is the institutionalization and codification of monogamy, imposing sexual limits on all individuals so as to make as many of them investors in the welfare of their own group.
A very important Paternalistic advancement that increased survival and reproductive potentials. Its negation - as in Americanism - means group collapse is imminent.
____________________________________________________
Morality and its varied moral/ethical cultural, social, restrictions are evaluated relative to their success/failure - consequences - and the kind of individual they promote and evolve - compared to other cultural values and moral/ethical codes.
Evaluated relative to the environment - not the social environment of their own making, but the natural environment.
Would these cultural ideal citizens be able to survive outside the protective womb of the socioeconomic environment that produced them?
How can they compete, and how do they objectively compare with other cultural ideal citizens?

Morality evolved to preserve cooperative social, or not, methods of survival and reproduction – heterosexuality being a cooperative method that does not, necessarily, depend on social tolerance and long-term tolerance.
Ethics evolved from this – human interventions. Both genetically based morality and memetically based ethics – extension of the previous – are methods of preserving the health and welfare of a group.
No universality, no god, required; no systemic imposition – except for ethics – required. Both develop through trial and error – naturally and/or socially selected due to their effectiveness; their positive/negative consequences.
‘God’ enters the picture only in Judaism, where ethics is codified and enforced by threat/reward system manipulating naturally evolved guilt/shame feelings; they weaponized shame/guilt, and this is evident in the stereotypically American neuroticism of an urban, New York, Jew, who needs psychotherapy to cope with the dissonance – and sexual dysfunctions, degeneracy – his own nihilistic, dogmatic, superstitious ideals produce.

One of the biggest lies infecting western man is that morality was given to man by god, or that the Jews invented morality, implying that there was no morality before the Jews or their god, or that there is none outside humanity.
The Jews were the first to encode addendum to moral behaviours, using the fabrication of god as an all-seeing judge none of their followers could escape - using conscience to impose guilt/shame as a tool for mass mind control.
They did not invent morality, nor moral behaviour, since this is an evolutionary necessity for all cooperative survival and reproductive strategies to remain effective.

Morality has to do with what benefits the group...and this evolves, just as mutations that offer an advantage are established because they manage to propagate, whereas those that offer no advantage ro a disadvantage are filtered out of the gene pool.
Ethics, addendum, like the ones I mention, are how an elite segment of a group judge to be advantageous, imposing it no the collective through the fear of god, ro spirits, or some other entity, based on their conception of an ideal member of their group, and survive if they actually do offer an advantage.

Ethics is also imposed against captured slaves, groups within groups.

"Rules for thee, Not for me."

The political establishment protects the wealthy upper-class. The upper-class see themselves as the "true and only" group. Thus their imposition upon the lower classes, is disadvantageous to the lower classes, like imposing 20lb, 50lb, 100lb weights onto the general populace. Most will not survive this imposition; most will not reproduce. But those that do may gain a strength that the upper-class loses over time. Because once the restrictions are shaken loose and removed, as they are during tumultuous and austere times, then revolutions occur.

Ethnos, on the other hand, implies a genetic morality. And that there is a loyalty beyond class, therefore beyond Ethics. This appears when the upper-class favor their own kind, or kindred spirits, even among the middle and lower classes. This is Favoritism and Nepotism, recognition of tribal loyalty that transcends class / wealth / political power differentials.

This type of ethnic tribalism is paramount to the project of Americanization / Globalization. The Washington DC Anglo establishment put enormous money and power into eliminating competition, from the onset of the New World British colonies and since the 17th Century.

"Only our Tribalism will be tolerated, none else."

The Globalists infiltrate these tribal loyalties by intermarrying into them, and corrupting them from the inside-out.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— redpillbot (@redpillb0t) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What the pro-abortion crowd never talks about.
This is so sad. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Leftism (@LeftismForU) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anti-abortionm has nothing to do with god. God is but the mechanism used to create adherence.
It has to do with collective interests....like all moral rules.

If abortion becomes a rule - normalized - then it has multiple detrimental effects on social cohesion and group viability.
Bother affecting group cohesion, and competitiveness.
Creating un-invested males/females - free radicals, a.k.a., free-spirits - and decreasing human resources - demographics - affecting group power.
Religion - Abrahamism - is a means of creating mass discipline and loyalty - especially in racially and culturally heterogenous social unities.
As such, it became an antagonist to Marxist secular methods - both Jewish in origin, because Judaism became the first encoded nihilistic dogma - later emulated by Christianity and Islam....and later by Marxism, and then Americanism; modernism and then postmodernism.

Morality is not relative - with or without god.

Morality evolved to facilitate certain survival and reproductive strategies. What we refer to with the term is the encoding if such behaviours as laws, or rules of conduct.
Their basis is group cohesion, and health, imposing restrictions on individual choices.
These are not arbitrary since the final standard is natural order.
Nature determines which of these restrictions offers group advantages and which disadvantages.

Ethical codes are manmade addendums to these encoded - linguistically, semiotically - rules of conduct; imposing restrictions to individual choices.
The linguistic encoding if moral laws is what then makes it possible to adjust them.

Even nihilistic morals - a-morals - must abide by moral and ethical codes or suffer the natural and social consequences.
Ethics - memetic.
Morals - genetic.

You cannot make moral - acceptable - what was immoral and not suffer the consequences.
The fact that it was immoral means that it served a purpose - preventing a particular behaviour, choice, from becoming popular and then destroying group cohesion and competitiveness relative to other groups and by reducing group constitution relative to natural challenges.

Quote :

A-moralism is supported by degenerates who want to justify a lifetime of immoral behaviour and bad choices leading to terrible consequences.
They prefer to understand morality as relative to accuse the system or some authority of imposing it upon them..

Morality requires no god.
It evolves to facilitate group dynamics, imposing limits to individual choices that harm group cohesion and group health.
God was used to threaten and reward such behaviour, by imagining some all-seeig entity. Necessary when group became too large to be completely policed or when they became too heterogenous to harmonize.

For example:
Violence - within the group - became immoral, as did paedophilia nd incest, not because god said so, but because such practices damaged group cohesion and viability in the long run.
Such rules are not arbitrary, they evolved through natural selection and were then encoded by man - later amended by men who wanted to impose them on a broader scale.

An example for the imbeciles that still do not get it:
Homosexuality and Transsexuality is not immoral because god says so, or some powers got together and arbitrarily decided it.
No morons.
Imagine the opposite.,
What is heterosexuality had been made immoral, and homosexuality moral....how long would such a group survive?
What if murder was made moral? How long would such a group survive?
What if incest were made moral, and sex with non-relative immoral...how long would such a group survie or remain healthy and competitive?

There's a reason an alpha male intervenes when two members of a chimpanzee troop become violent.
It's not because god told him so or humans told him violence is not good....no morons, it is because in-group violence disrupts group cohesion, female reproductive roles, and in the end the group's competitiveness, and cohesion.
All pragmatic reasons.
Evolved because groups that did not evolved this ability to self-discipline became extinct...fast.
No god necessary.
No inventive coercion imposing rules it invents out of nowhere.

A-morality is but an outcrop of the same psychology that attracts minds to the delusion of anarchy, which is founded on Communism...
All those alienated, or feeling downgraded, or rejected by the system - representing the group - tend to be attracted by such ideologies.
The feeling of exploitation goes further into human psychology than economics.
It has to do with feeling invested and belonging, and identifying with the social group.
Those that feel unappreciated, ro not appreciated enough, or have been excluded from the gene pool - ironically by Marxism itself, and tis promotion of anti-biological identifiers and feminism; those that feel wronged by collective ideals - believing that if the rules were different, or totally absent they would rise to the top -, those that feel unable to compete - advocating an end to competitiveness and a more rational and just arrangement of all-inclusion, where all would benefit equally - again, ironically this delusion is based on the naïve conviction that capitalism, or authoritarianism, creates competitiveness and injustices and that this is not part of natural selection.
Capitalism doesn't invent "injustices and inequality"...it takes advantage of it, and ti adjust it to enable those few that climb to the top to remain there indefinitely - creating a social stability absent in nature.
Nepotism, networking are all part of capitalism....replacing one set of "injustices and inequalities" with another - natural replaced by manmade. This offers the naïve delusional nitwit the delusion that inequality and what it considers "unjust" are all manmade, when, in fact, inequality and competitiveness - creating winners and losers-  is part of nature - man simply corrupts them, creating a new set of issues.

If morality is arbitrary then why have no systems adopted the morals where abortion was moral and not having an abortion was immoral?
What of killing.....if it were made moral - by the powers that be - and not killing was deemed immoral?
What of paedophilia, incest, bestiality?
What if having sex with other species was made moral - Just because some group felt like it and they had power - and sex within your species was made immoral? If morality is arbitrary - in a 'no god world' then why wouldn't these moral systems be just as good as any other?
What is adultery was moral and promiscuity was made moral?
How long would such systems last?

Imbeciles never thing about the negative consequences, all they can ever think of are the subjective benefits.
They cannot think objectively, so they consider it a myth, and ti proves to be a myth - in their binary mind - because it can never be absolute.
Recovering Abrahamics.
If there is no absolute authority, there is no authority.
If there is no omnipotence, there is only impotence; if there is no omniscience there is only ignorance.

No matter what I say about morality or any subject, it is as if I've said nothing....among the desperate degenerate who return to their inter-subjective motives about eliminating pain and suffering.

Wasted time?

Only if you think this is directed at these imbeciles - these lost causes - and that it is not directed at the silent visitor, using these brain-dead zombies as a means.

Dare to ask....and you shall receive.

It reminds me of the MGTOW movement.

Okay, you reject women...now what? You will die without reproducing. Your sexual lust contradicts your very ideology.

I empathize with Anarchists regarding the absurdity and comical Injustices of postmodernity—and that's about it when it comes to agreement. Yes, these systems are absurd, and Feminism has lent destruction toward earlier eras of prosperity, especially the Optimism, Abundance, Posterity of the 1990s, 80s, and before. Things did feel much 'happier' back then. The downward slide is hard to deny, collectively, socially, civilizationally. In the end, Anarchists have no realistic solution or alternative to the systems they wish to destroy. So their destruction has no Aftermath, no vision, beyond 'destroy' what is in front of them.

This is why they are useful idiots, lackeys, to the Democrat party in the US. They are political pawns, to the powerful elite.

They are quick to sell-out too. Most only take a $100,000 pay check and that ends their "Anarchism".

MGTOW adopted feminism as a way to blackmail females the way they use ses to manipulate males.
They wrongly assumed that monogamy would force females to give-in to their pressure and capitulate.
Naïve....women returned to what was most natural for them - breeding with the same males, and using the rest.
A recipe for social unrest and degradation.
This homosexual, transsexual movement is partially about those males - and some females - that realized they had no sexual options.

Values and morals do not emerge nor become applicable within a vacuum.
All theories, all evaluations, all morals, when and if applied in real time in the shared world produce consequences....some expected most unexpected.

Moral behaviours, later encoded by humans as moral rules, laws, evolved over millions of years of natural selection, and were established, as innate behaviuors, when they proved to offer an advantage.

Moral relativism is the favourite lollipop of the desperate degenerate who must live in absolute authority, oneness, certainty, or regress to amoral degeneracy....nihilism, its favourite state.

If no god then man must be the author of morality - inventing ti from nothing, to express personal preferences.
This si what a typical retard believes to justify its own moral reletivism.

In fact, morality evolved to facilitate survival, not to jack-off a needy degenerate hedonist.

If any moral law was just as good as any other - expressing persona, subjective, preferences - then why hasn't paedophilia become moral, or transsexuality, or zoophilia.
Why isn't murder moral - especially in-group violence -...in any ethical system?
Why hasn't heterosexuality been declared immoral and homosexuality the height of morality?


Because all human behaviours, preferences, values, must be evaluated in real time, by an indifferent natural roder.
Transsexuality hasn't ever, in the history of mankind, become the pinnacle of morality, and heterosexuality the depth of immorality....because of the natural implications.
No such ethical standard would survive in the world....in an indifferent to human delusions world.
Nothing to do with power, and 'might makes right'....no, might never makes right....right makes might.

Nihilism can only survive an an esoteric, internal doctrine....used for political reasons to control masses of manimals, hedonistic imbeciles.

Like the US's inherent nihilistic doctrine....it would never have survive - let along become a superpower - if it had abided by tis own lies.
See Civil War....see immigration policies up until recently....see the lie of meritocracy when nepotism, plutocracy and collectivism of the wealthy is the rule in the States. Genitally mutilated are the most collectivist dogma of them all...and they dominate America because they preach what they do not practice - influencing imbeciles and degenerates across the world with their lies, promising what they can ever deliver - the American dream.

Look at Americans - drugs, sex and rock'n roll, over a continuous obsessing with making money - working two three jobs....being congratulated by the wealthy for being so greedy, when they need two jobs just to make ends meet.
Ha!
Then pseudo-anarchist go to Australia or Canada, with a strong socialist welfare state....to survive by becoming parasitical, while preaching independence and self-relaince.

What underlies the social component of morality?
The right of ownership.

An organism occupies a part of space/time necessary for tis organization - its organ proportionality and arrangements, determined by its evolved method of survival and reproduction, as an expression of the former.
This is extended to things and geographies appropriated as a right of the one that invested energies to their adaptation to his needs/desires.
This is a natural right found among all living organisms.

This right is what determined right from wrong, e.g., if a lion pride take down a water buffalo then it is their right to consume it.
Hyenas attempting to exploit their work - risks, effort, i.e., expended energies, are in the wrong....objectively speaking.
But beyond good/evil, there are no moral rules in nature. Exploitation, injustice, is part of it all.
Such rules are only applicable within  social group, necessitating self-limitaitons to preserve cohesion.
Rights of ownership increase depending no the amount of effort and time necessary to adapt, adjust, change energies into a desirable form - right of the hunter over his kill; right of a farmer over the land he cleared and cultivated...all the way to the right of the individual over his body, which is a product of appropriating, processing, and adapting energies to its requirements.
The area of its physical displacement representing the area of possibilities it is attempting to organize inot desirable probabilities.

Good/Bad is based on what offers an advantage and what a disadvantage to an individual's well-being. It is not arbitrary and manmade.
It is entirely based on nature and environmental conditions.
Good/Bad corresponds to positive/negative, relative to what?
Not god, you simple pathetic morons, relative to the individual's nature. Its needs and desires, as indicated by its biology.

This is the foundation of morality.

What is morality in relation to a group's well-being?
Same thing, only now the individual's needs/desires are usurped by shared needs and desires.
Nature remains the determining factor.
This is how moral behaviour evolves and is then encoded by humans as moral codes.

Ethics are more complex, and not for the simpletons. It'll only confuse them and offer them excuses and validations for their nihilistic delusions.
Genes/Memes....ethics evolve out of and in relation to morals - manmade addendums, based on human objectives, established as viable over centuries of trial and error.

Moral behaviours - witnessed across species lines, across tribal, cultural lines - are what evolved to facilitate a specific survival and reproductive strategy.

But what of nihilistic ethic?
Here duplicity is a factor, and so recovering Abrahamics assume all is based no duplicity.
If nihilistic ethics were actually applied then individuals could not survive. They invent excuses - founded on intentionally obscure verbiage - to contradict their own ethics - see all of Abrahamism....they are based on lies and self-deciet, including their offshoots, like Marxism and postmodern wokism.
If, for some reason, they are forced to adhere to their own ethical standards they implode - as the US is imploding.
Nihilism is always esoteric - always applicable internally....never, ever, externally.
The nihilistic dogmatist must invent an excuse explaining why it preaches and practices one thing internally, and then practices its antithesis externally.
Nihilism is a psychological tool of manipualtion. It exploits awakening self-consciousness, to produce slavishness, as it promotes freedom and independence.

I've already given the example of Americanism and how it preaches an ideology that rejected gender and race s 'social constructs' while practicing exactly the opposite for decades - when it was called-out and forced to adhere to its own "values" is condemned itself to an inevitable end.


As always....
When the real and the ideal come face-to-face, the ideal will always suffer the consequences.

Behaviours, actions, are not bad because they are deemed "immoral"....they are deemed immoral because they have negative, i.e., bad, consequences on individuals and, primarily, on groups.

Nihilists invert everything.

Morality evolves to discipline individual choices and actions to group dynamics and well-being.....encoded as Divine Laws, symbolically chiselled in stone, ethics add to these moral behaviours their own layer of group dynamics, based on the well-being of a group, rules and regulations limiting individual choices and actions.
Ethics, like Mosaic laws, are manmade, human addendums, to moral norms that have evolved, through trial and error, as innate reactions to specific actions, like paedophilia, incest, in-group violence, zoophilia etc.

Moral behaviours, encoded by humans as moral laws, don't evolve out of nowhere, they evolve because they offer some kind of advantage to the organism and its particular survival and reproductive strategy; ethical laws, addendums to the previous moral rules, are not established and enforced, because they offer some kind of advantage to the group that adopts them, or because they inhibit behaviours that damage a group's competitiveness relative to other groups.

Ethical antithesis to transgenderism, homosexuality being promoted as a norm, an alternate lifestyle, or against violence, or against adultery or abortion, are not arbitrary nor unnecessary. They are established over centuries of trial & error because they offer some kind of advantage or prevent the propagation of destructive, to group welfare, behaviours.
Promoting an idealized kind of citizen, particular to a culture.
If such rules were of no use, they could not have survived.

Ethics and Morality evolved using the same principles as any physical or mental trait: trial and error....those traits that offered an advantage were passed on, those that offered a disadvantage died off.

This is why you don't find a moral system where homosexuality, transsexuality, necrophilia, are considered virtues and heterosexuality, cooperation, tolerance, altruism are considered a vices.

No god required....no coercion necessary.
Simple natural selection methods and rules.
Advantage/Disadvantage....good/bad....
What offers an advantage is established as a virtue; what offers a disadvantage is considered a vice.
Good/Bad....good/evil.
Moral/Immoral = what benefits a group and is established over time as advantageous is considered 'moral' what is established as disadvantageous is considered immoral.

In successful; systems reaching wealth levels where some disadvantages can be absorbed homosexuality, transsexuality, sexual deviance emerges and flourishes....as such we see the same cycles in all empires that reach a pinnacle of power and then begin to decline - the same symptoms: such as decadence and degeneracy.
Now we see it in America as it begins is decline towards oblivion...
Americans are so delusional that they are now convinced that they are so wealthy and powerful that they can endure any disadvantage and not suffer any grave consequence to their world standing...
It is in the first stages of tis decline.

Morality is relative to small social groupings: genetic tribal lines, Ethnos.

Once isolated, it's crystal clear how and why specific genetic groups behave, act, and cultivate as they do.  These are adaptations to Environment.  And as mankind progressed into new successful phases, these environments because specialized: Rural, Suburban, Urban.  Proletariat vs Bourgeois vs Ruling Elite.  Those that could manipulate the masses the best, became predominant over time.  Further specialization cemented these trends, so that not much would change thereafter.  Mankind settles into states of 'permanence', habituation, monotony.  Mankind feels safe in its success, but atrophies.

Without reminders, without reconnection to Nature, the link to past success and glory becomes lost and misplaced.  Then societies are doomed to failure, unable to learn and adapt to newer circumstances, or more clearly in this postmodern phase ...unable to foresee the rise of a new social revolutionary movement, which changes the color of a flag, but not much else in terms of "social revolution".  After all, if the system's not broken, why fix it?

What has fundamentally shaken or shifted the political power dynamics during this Century?  After nukes were created and dispersed to key nations, major military powers have held back full-scale industrial war that took place in the 20th Century.

...until now, the power does seem to be slipping: Incompetence, Dementia, inability to Learn/Understand, unable to Adapt to the 21st Century.

Quote :

Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.
Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group.
No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.
Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with lack a persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.
Dunbar's number was first proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who theorized that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained."
On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues such as high school friends with whom a person would want to reacquaint oneself if they met again.

Dunbar's number suggests a reason why when groups grow to beyond a limit universals must be invented to discipline the individual to group dynamics and group interests.
Moral behaviour must be amended with ethical rules....ascribed to a universal absolute, i.e., god.